Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke

Background Recurrent stroke is a frequent, disabling event after ischemic stroke. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two antiplatelet regimens — aspirin plus extendedrelease dipyridamole (ASA–ERDP) versus clopidogrel. Methods In this double-blind, 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive 25 mg of aspirin plus 200 mg of extended-release dipyridamole twice daily or to receive 75 mg of clopidogrel daily. The primary outcome was first recurrence of stroke. The secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. Sequential statistical testing of noninferiority (margin of 1.075), followed by superiority testing, was planned. Results A total of 20,332 patients were followed for a mean of 2.5 years. Recurrent stroke occurred in 916 patients (9.0%) receiving ASA–ERDP and in 898 patients (8.8%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11). The secondary outcome occurred in 1333 patients (13.1%) in each group (hazard ratio for ASA–ERDP, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07). There were more major hemorrhagic events among ASA–ERDP recipients (419 [4.1%]) than among clopidogrel recipients (365 [3.6%]) (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32), including intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.83). The net risk of recurrent stroke or major hemorrhagic event was similar in the two groups (1194 ASA–ERDP recipients [11.7%], vs. 1156 clopidogrel recipients [11.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11). Conclusions The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for noninferiority but showed similar rates of recurrent stroke with ASA–ERDP and with clopidogrel. There is no evidence that either of the two treatments was superior to the other in the prevention of recurrent stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.

What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The smallest difference to be detected in superiority trials or the largest difference to be ruled out in noninferiority trials is a key determinant of sample size, but little guidance exists to help researchers in their choice. The objectives were to examine the distribution of differences that researchers aim to detect in clinical trials and to verify that those differences are smaller in noninferiority compared to superiority trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional study based on a random sample of two hundred two-arm, parallel group superiority (100) and noninferiority (100) randomized clinical trials published between 2004 and 2009 in 27 leading medical journals. The main outcome measure was the smallest difference in favor of the new treatment to be detected (superiority trials) or largest unfavorable difference to be ruled out (noninferiority trials) used for sample size computation, expressed as standardized difference in proportions, or standardized difference in means. Student t test and analysis of variance were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The differences to be detected or ruled out varied considerably from one study to the next; e.g., for superiority trials, the standardized difference in means ranged from 0.007 to 0.87, and the standardized difference in proportions from 0.04 to 1.56. On average, superiority trials were designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials (standardized difference in proportions: mean 0.37 versus 0.27, <it>P </it>= 0.001; standardized difference in means: 0.56 versus 0.40, <it>P </it>= 0.006). Standardized differences were lower for mortality than for other outcomes, and lower in cardiovascular trials than in other research areas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Superiority trials are designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials are designed to rule out. The variability between studies is considerable and is partly explained by the type of outcome and the medical context. A more explicit and rational approach to choosing the difference to be detected or to be ruled out in clinical trials may be desirable.</p

What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND: The smallest difference to be detected in superiority trials or the largest difference to be ruled out in noninferiority trials is a key determinant of sample size, but little guidance exists to help researchers in their choice. The objectives were to examine the distribution of differences that researchers aim to detect in clinical trials and to verify that those differences are smaller in noninferiority compared to superiority trials. METHODS: Cross-sectional study based on a random sample of two hundred two-arm, parallel group superiority (100) and noninferiority (100) randomized clinical trials published between 2004 and 2009 in 27 leading medical journals. The main outcome measure was the smallest difference in favor of the new treatment to be detected (superiority trials) or largest unfavorable difference to be ruled out (noninferiority trials) used for sample size computation, expressed as standardized difference in proportions, or standardized difference in means. Student t test and analysis of variance were used. RESULTS: The differences to be detected or ruled out varied considerably from one study to the next; e.g., for superiority trials, the standardized difference in means ranged from 0.007 to 0.87, and the standardized difference in proportions from 0.04 to 1.56. On average, superiority trials were designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials (standardized difference in proportions: mean 0.37 versus 0.27, P = 0.001; standardized difference in means: 0.56 versus 0.40, P = 0.006). Standardized differences were lower for mortality than for other outcomes, and lower in cardiovascular trials than in other research areas. CONCLUSIONS: Superiority trials are designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials are designed to rule out. The variability between studies is considerable and is partly explained by the type of outcome and the medical context. A more explicit and rational approach to choosing the difference to be detected or to be ruled out in clinical trials may be desirable

Conformational changes necessary for gene regulation by Tet repressor assayed by reversible disulfide bond formation.

We constructed and characterized four Tet repressor (TetR) variants with engineered cysteine residues which can form disulfide bonds and are located in regions where conformational changes during induction by tetracycline (tc) might occur. All TetR mutants show nearly wild-type activities in vivo, and the reduced proteins also show wild-type activities in vitro. Complete and reversible disulfide bond formation was achieved in vitro for all four mutants. The disulfide bond in NC18RC94 immobilizes the DNA reading head with respect to the protein core and prevents operator binding. Formation of this disulfide bond is possible only in the tc-bound, but not in the operator-bound conformation. Thus, these residues must have different conformations when bound to these ligands. The disulfide bonds in DC106PC159' and EC107NC165' immobilize the variable loop between alpha-helices 8 and 9 located near the tc-binding pocket. A faster rate of disulfide formation in the operator-bound conformation and a lack of induction after disulfide formation show that the variable loop is located closer to the protein core in the operator-bound conformation and that a movement is necessary for induction. The disulfide bond in RC195VC199' connects alpha-helices 10 and 10' of the two subunits in the dimer and is only formed in the tc-bound conformation. The oxidized protein shows reduced operator binding. Thus, this bond prevents formation of the operator-bound conformation. The detection of conformational changes in three different regions is the first biochemical evidence for induction-associated global internal movements in TetR

Domain motions accompanying Tet repressor induction defined by changes of interspin distances at selectively labeled sites.

To investigate internal movements in Tet repressor (TetR) during induction by tetracycline (tc) we determined the interspin distances between pairs of nitroxide spin labels attached to specific sites by electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. For this purpose, we constructed six TetR variants with engineered cysteine pairs located in regions with presumed conformational changes. These are I22C and N47C in the DNA reading head, T152C/Q175C, A161C/Q175C and R128C/D180C near the tc-binding pocket, and T202C in the dimerization surface. All TetR mutants show wild-type activities in vivo and in vitro. The binding of tc results in a considerable decrease of the distance between the nitroxide groups attached to both I22C residues in the TetR dimer and an increase of the distance between the N47C residues. These opposite effects are consistent with a twisting motion of the DNA reading heads. Changes of the spin-spin interactions between nitroxide groups attached to residues near the tc-binding pocket demonstrate that the C-terminal end of alpha-helix 9 moves away from the protein core upon DNA binding. Alterations of the dipolar interaction between nitroxide groups at T202C indicate different conformations for tc and DNA-bound repressor also in the dimerization area. These results are used to model structural changes of TetR upon induction

The impact of privacy and confidentiality laws on the conduct of clinical trials.

Justifiable concerns about the use of personal data in many aspects of daily life have led to the recent introduction in many countries of laws intended to regulate data use. Although participation in randomized clinical trials is generally with informed consent, recruitment procedures, complete follow-up, and the efficient conduct of trials may be substantially affected by such national or local privacy legislation. The relevant laws often have exceptions that allow the use of patient information in the public interest - including the use of data collected to improve or monitor public health or as part of medical research. However, regulatory bodies often give conflicting interpretations of the law, and this affects the conduct of large-scale trials. In particular, unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the law may be a serious impediment to identification of potential participants for a trial, access to records to confirm events, continued follow-up of patients after the trial has been concluded, and secondary use of the trial data for purposes not directly related to the original purpose of the study. These obstacles could be overcome by better informing patients of the uses of records for medical research purposes, by using informed consent procedures that explain the nature of the research and the uses of the data, and by the use of identifiers, such as social security numbers that allow central follow-up. The clinical trial research community needs to ensure that the substantial benefits of large-scale randomized trials are explained both to the public and to those responsible for introducing legislation. The negative impact of privacy legislation on the use of personal health information and on conducting large studies needs to be understood and minimized

Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke

Background Recurrent stroke is a frequent, disabling event after ischemic stroke. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two antiplatelet regimens — aspirin plus extendedrelease dipyridamole (ASA–ERDP) versus clopidogrel. Methods In this double-blind, 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive 25 mg of aspirin plus 200 mg of extended-release dipyridamole twice daily or to receive 75 mg of clopidogrel daily. The primary outcome was first recurrence of stroke. The secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. Sequential statistical testing of noninferiority (margin of 1.075), followed by superiority testing, was planned. Results A total of 20,332 patients were followed for a mean of 2.5 years. Recurrent stroke occurred in 916 patients (9.0%) receiving ASA–ERDP and in 898 patients (8.8%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11). The secondary outcome occurred in 1333 patients (13.1%) in each group (hazard ratio for ASA–ERDP, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07). There were more major hemorrhagic events among ASA–ERDP recipients (419 [4.1%]) than among clopidogrel recipients (365 [3.6%]) (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32), including intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.83). The net risk of recurrent stroke or major hemorrhagic event was similar in the two groups (1194 ASA–ERDP recipients [11.7%], vs. 1156 clopidogrel recipients [11.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11). Conclusions The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for noninferiority but showed similar rates of recurrent stroke with ASA–ERDP and with clopidogrel. There is no evidence that either of the two treatments was superior to the other in the prevention of recurrent stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.

Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events

Background Prolonged lowering of blood pressure after a stroke reduces the risk of recurrent stroke. In addition, inhibition of the renin–angiotensin system in high-risk patients reduces the rate of subsequent cardiovascular events, including stroke. However, the effect of lowering of blood pressure with a renin–angiotensin system inhibitor soon after a stroke has not been clearly established. We evaluated the effects of therapy with an angiotensin-receptor blocker, telmisartan, initiated early after a stroke. Methods In a multicenter trial involving 20,332 patients who recently had an ischemic stroke, we randomly assigned 10,146 to receive telmisartan (80 mg daily) and 10,186 to receive placebo. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. Secondary outcomes were major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, or new or worsening heart failure) and new-onset diabetes. Results The median interval from stroke to randomization was 15 days. During a mean followup of 2.5 years, the mean blood pressure was 3.8/2.0 mm Hg lower in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group. A total of 880 patients (8.7%) in the telmisartan group and 934 patients (9.2%) in the placebo group had a subsequent stroke (hazard ratio in the telmisartan group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.04; P = 0.23). Major cardiovascular events occurred in 1367 patients (13.5%) in the telmisartan group and 1463 patients (14.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.01; P = 0.11). New-onset diabetes occurred in 1.7% of the telmisartan group and 2.1% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.04; P = 0.10). Conclusions Therapy with telmisartan initiated soon after an ischemic stroke and continued for 2.5 years did not significantly lower the rate of recurrent stroke, major cardiovascular events, or diabetes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.